Including Montana.

Not sure I agree. I think many people who are “defeatist about voting” have observed that the surface-level differences between Democrats and Republicans (namely social issues and the more visible fascism from Republicans) just mask an underlying corporatist/fascist state that’s sacrosanct and immune from popular pressure and legislative change.

Re: “Obamacare” (which is just one tiny change mind you) - there were some marginal improvements like re: preexisting conditions, but mostly it seemed to increase compliance costs, my understanding is premiums have just continued rising and the fundamental issues causing healthcare scarcity and limiting competition have been made worse.

In effect, the bonds I mentioned are just inverted loans. The Treasury takes in $1k from payroll taxes for these programs, issues a bond to the trust fund saying “I owe you $1k plus interest”, spends the $1k on whatever (I guess primarily the discretionary budget) and eventually has to somehow generate money to pay it back with interest.

In terms of whether or not bonds were “borrowed” - this wouldn’t exactly matter in a meaningful sense, but I’m not clear this ever actually happened in the first place. There was some claim about, when the trust fund was mixed with the general fund 1968-1990, maybe the government took bonds out of the program, but you have to remember that inside the government, that’s not something of value, that’s just an obligation the government has to pay to itself, it’s a big nothing burger. The outstanding liabilities from Social Security to the actual beneficiaries (elderly people) exist regardless of how the government is doing their accounting internally.

Read any SS Trustees report. It doesn’t have “money”, it has debt instruments (bonds), which are essentially a document saying “we the government owe ourselves a thousand dollars”. You can print those all day, it’s only sourcing that money that has any kind of direct consequence (taxation, inflation, etc.).

And yes, that does raise an interesting question of, what did they do with the actual money we paid into the programs, if the only thing in the trust fund is bonds.

Social Security doesn’t have assets, it has debt obligations, which to the government, are something you can conjure out of thin air. The only senses in which it can “run out” is if outlays exceed receipts, or if it runs out of debt instruments to cash out and has to ask for a pile of more debt instruments.

I’m assuming you’re all talking about the Uyghur genocide. I wouldn’t downplay it for a second, but the simple reality is that they’re not being exterminated through a rapid act of carpet bombing by high-powered airstrikes, the degree and brutality of the killing going on in Gaza right now is unlike anything I’ve seen in my entire life. To cleave to the point here, which is, “do other ongoing genocides exceed this one in terms of killing of civilians”.

It may be the case that the long-term death toll is higher, considering how many years it’s been happening, though downplaying what’s happening in Gaza on that basis, I mean, let’s not wait for that comparison to flip.

Looks like that “live updates” link broke - here’s a persistent link https://turkiye.un.org/en/253313-gaza-unprecedented-and-unparalleled-civilian-death-toll-guterres

You referencing that MEMRI video? If so, do some serious source checking on it.

We’re seeking something like 20-25k dead in the last 6 weeks - 1/57th of the entire population killed or wounded. What are you thinking of that exceeds that?

Any real actions from the UN have to come from the UN Security Council, which is paralyzed by the veto power of its permanent members (US, UK, Russia, France, China).

That’s not the question.

It’s interesting how this leaves out 17 years of choking supplies of food and water to the civilian population of Gaza, the Israeli occupation and settlements in Gaza prior to 2005, the fact that that illegal occupation had been ongoing for 38 years despite international outcry, the naval blockade amounting to an act of war of its own, and really the whole broader context of the population of Gaza being displaced by ethnic cleansing by Israel since 1948.

We need a hell of a lot more evidence to support that than we’ve seen, it would still run into major problems with proportionality/distinction standards regarding all the civilians they killed in and around the hospital, and it wouldn’t make a scratch with regard to the other civilian infrastructure they’ve targeted.

The way you phrase it poses an impossible dilemma for Palestinian resistance. Non-violent resistance is outlawed and slaughtered (anti-BDS law, massacre of the Great March of Return, assassinations of peace activists, international smear campaigns, etc.). Violent resistance is impossible on equal standards as Israel maintains air superiority over occupied Palestine - separate infrastructure would be bombed. So we have a ghettoized population, under siege, under blockade, under air monitoring. What option is left for them? Hidden military infrastructure, tunnels, arms smuggling - and this all gets immediately condemned.

We try to hold these populations to the standards of international law - but morally, the abstraction starts to break down. It’s easy for a country like the U.S. to abide by some of these standards on the surface - we can have exposed military infrastructure, because we have SAM sites, we have intercontinental ballistic missiles, first-class fighter jets, etc. We’ve heard plenty about the perspectives that purport to justify the Israeli/U.S. offensive, that seem on the surface to make our military efforts legitimate. But (from the media at least) we rarely hear about the narratives in support of the opposing side - 75 years of ethnic cleansing, land theft, crushing military occupation, siege, perfidy, random massacres and apartheid. They have a legitimate cause and grievances. So we have to actually consider what avenues of recourse are even available to them to pursue that cause. Otherwise we’re essentially just telling them to “quiet down and die”. On the broader scale, it’s like saying, it’s forbidden to punch while you’re lying on the ground, while you tackle somebody and beat them to death.

That being said, of course certain things are both war crimes and not essential to resistance - i.e., killing unarmed civilians - to whatever extent Hamas militants actually did engage in this (we know they killed some, and we know the IDF killed some as well - as well as the 13-20k+ civilians Israel has killed at this point).

And this is not to give credence to Israeli claims of repurposing, either. The standard under international law is to prove that each individual peace of infrastructure is actively being used for military purposes, and that its strategic value outweighs the casualties from shelling it, and Israel has not been meeting that standard overall by any metric.

You used to support (Palestine) but then the (entire 5M current population of Palestinian) paraded innocent cadavers through their streets?

I will never understand how people have the nerve to leave comments about things they don’t understand or know anything about.

“He hasn’t gotten”? He drafted the request:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-drafts-100-billion-foreign-aid-package-including/story?id=104059871

write an executive understanding order, which again can not set new conditions,

He is bound by existing conditions, e.g. the ratification of the Geneva Convention, not to facilitate genocide. He is currently being sued for this.

edit: To be sure, the reason I wrote this is contentious, the actual scope of EOs (not to be confused with a private MOU, which isn’t applicable nor legally binding) is contentious. The reason we have the executive branch to begin with, in terms of checks and balances, is to ensure there can be a refusal to implement. Although it’s a non-issue in this case since he’s asking for it, it would only become an issue with a 2/3 majority ready to force legislation through and with him actually opposed to it. Disclaimer, not a lawyer, just know some fundamentals.

You’re beyond clueless. Genocide and incitement to genocide are inchoate crimes, i.e., you don’t have to successfully eradicate a population to be guilty of it, just to commit actions with intent. Not to even get into the openly genocidal actions that have occurred. Read the links I sent you or shut up, it’s covered in absolutely exhaustive detail.

Not continuing this conversation.

edit for a more precise definition:

Incitement to genocide is a crime under international law which prohibits inciting (encouraging) the commission of genocide. An extreme form of hate speech, incitement to genocide is considered an inchoate offense and is theoretically subject to prosecution even if genocide does not occur, although charges have never been brought in an international court without mass violence having occurred. “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide” was forbidden by the Genocide Convention in 1948. Incitement to genocide is often cloaked in metaphor and euphemism and may take many forms beyond direct advocacy, including dehumanization and accusation in a mirror.

He can veto the legislation, and (more contentiously) he can issue executive orders blocking the implementation of the legislation. Or least of all, use his human mouth to speak words against the legislation (the “bully pulpit”).

Truth is the truth. Doesn’t take much imagination to see why that type of idea is stigmatized so much.